I am working on a medieval adventure game. Basically, the player controls a group of knights that run around doing knightly things. They can also pick up new types of weapons. I have been working on drawing the graphics and I was trying to make a list of graphics for weapons that I think would be applicable. The actual graphic can be shared by multiple weapons (i.e. Sword of Pain, Sword of Power, Sword of Slicing Ye Olde Balogna all could have the same graphic as Broad Sword, they just have different values for attack, defense, etc...) This is what I have so far:

Fist
Axe
Broad Sword
Short Sword
Rapier
Staff
Pitchfork
Club
Pole Axe
Spear
Long Bow
Bow
Cross Bow
Mace
Morning Star
Knife
Torch
Ninja Sword
Throwing Star

Any suggestions to add to the medieval mayhem?

If your going to have fist, you could always add--

Stick (Sub-classes: Twig, Branch, Root)

Now, on a more serous note, that list looks pretty complete...

Um, Ninja Sword? Technically, that is not exactly midevil, if you get right down to it. So is teh throwing star. But other than that, everything looks okay to me...

You've got a pretty complete list, but may I suggest:

Battleaxe
Throwing knife
Spiked glove

and

Ye olde flamethrower

Throwable Object Class:
Subclasses:
Stone
Pebble
Small Boulder
Brick
Holy Hand Gernade
Cows (to be lobbed of of tower walls)
And, of course, Coconuts.

BFG!

There's nunchakus and a naginata if that fits your setting ...

PS: From the Grand List of RPG Cliches:

Rule 21: The MacGyver Rule
Other than for the protagonists, your choice of weapons is not limited to the prosaic guns, clubs, or swords. Given appropriate skills, you can cut a bloody swath across the continent using gloves, combs, umbrellas, megaphones, dictionaries, sketching tablets -- you name it, you can kill with it. Even better, no matter how surreal your choice of armament, every store you pass will just happen to stock an even better model of it for a very reasonable price. Who else is running around the world killing people with an umbrella?

dagger
two-handed sword
lance
javelin
composite bow
lockbow
sling
garrote
polearms (pikes, guisarmes)
pole-axes (halberds, glaives, volges)
quarterstaff
flail
warhammer
staves
trident
pick
whip/chain
scimitar, cutlass, claymre, sabre, etc.
stiletto

Go Plucky!

I cheated and did an easy search.

There are many nice sites out there with weapons lists, including this one:
http://members.tripod.com/~Driftwood/rpg/weapons_chart.html
and a decent equipment list here:
http://www.aspalliance.com/stevesmith/gurps/equip.asp

Plucky's list looks more like mine.
I have 31 written down on a list - you need to be more general.

'Throwing Weapons' may be a general throwing weapon class. I didn't have this at all though..

I divide them into five categories:

• Knives (including knives, daggers, dirks, stilettos and blades).

• Swords (including shortswords, longswords, bas-tard swords gets filtered otherwise, claymores, scimitars, falchions, broadswords).

• Axes (short axes, long-handled axes, waraxes and battleaxes, cleavers, some halberds too).

• Polearms (quarterstaves, halberds, pikes, tridents, spears, jabalins, partisans).

Bows could be added, but they are difficult to handle in games Zelda-like. Bare hands aren't that useful too </li>

The question you should be asking isn't, "What weapons are avaliable?" but "what are the gameplay differences between various weapons?"

Why should the player use a Short Sword rather than a Long Sword? Does the weapon change how combat works? Why would the player ever use Polearms?

I've never liked it when a game has 20 different choices of weapons, but you'll only ever really use 3 of them; the rest are superfluous. If you put a weapon in the game, make sure that it has a real gameplay use.

Every Zelda game, sans Zelda 2, featured bows. Well, not the Oracles, but they had seed-throwers, which were the same thing.

thank you for all the input. as for the gameplay, all things are handled as generic game objects, including weapons. Every player has an attack rating, regardless of whether ore not they carry a weapon (hence the fist) Objects then have rating modifiers. All a weapon is, is an object that modifies the attack rating for the player carrying it.

Interestingly, a dilemma is provided by the spiked glove suggestion. One presumably could still hold a sword in a spiked glove hand. I hope to be able to implement this - that would be cool.

Korval, as for the value of multiple weapons, the intent is to have the weapons get progressively more powerful as the game progresses (and your players get stronger). Like when you begin, one of your knights may only be strong enough to carry a shortsword, when a broadsword is more desirable. Also, by exploring the different combinations of attack, defense, range, and special powers for weapons, it seems that I will need a reasonable amount. I really hope to make it so that the gameplay benefits from many weapons choices.

I hope to have somthing I can put into the depot soon, but school is about to start and I'm going to be working a lot, so I don't know if I will have much time to program. Thanks again for all your input!

Lemme add a few more:

Rocket launcher
Flamethrower
Grenade launcher
Nuke
Atom bomb
Laser blaster
Machine gun

You also will need a rideable Redeemer.

if you put the Weapons in order it will be much easier to give them stats

check out these
[url http://www.rpgbattle.com/weapon.cgi?1]

Korval: Although I'd agree that it's really nice to have proper gameplay ramifications to your choice of weapon, it's also nice to have shedloads of them just because it means there's lots to see and collect (especially worth it if you can interesting descriptions for each weapons, especially the rarer ones) and also it's a nice way of building in a difficulty curve by not giving out the better ones till later on in the game. But I'd definately have stuff like giving different weapons the power to stun, poison, slow down, etc and also some kind of elemental alignment and/or damage type (ie, "blunt" being good against skeletons who shatter, but "sharp" being crap against them as it just goes through the gaps) to further add nuance to loading out your soldiers.

For a good example of what Graham Goring just said about having many different kinds of weapons, go play one of the Jagged Alliance games - especially Jagged Alliance 2. There's even an option in JA2 to select how many different kinds of weapons there are - the options are either "normal guns" or "tons of guns"

[EDIT]
Graham Goring, not Graham Goering. I thoroughly apologize

That's the standard RPG convention for weapons. However, I've always felt that that's kinda silly.

You know the player is going to pick up NewWeaponX at destination Y. You're giving him that weapon at that point because you want to increase his damage output. Why not just fold damage output increases into his increase in level? Then, you could have just a few swords, but getting a new one is a major event; your character's damage output increases significantly.

Take Zelda, for instance. In Zelda 3, you had 4 swords throughout an 8-hour (if you know where to go) game. Each new sword brings a dramatic increase in damage output.

Also, if your game is more action-based than standard console RPG fare (something more like Zelda than Final Fantasy), then forcing the player to keep switching weapons in combat, based on the type of monster, can get really annoying. It's OK to lower or raise the effectiveness of certain weapons, but the user should still be able to kill things with even the weakest of weapons.

Korval i disagree with that

Zelda and Final Fantasy are two totally different games

if you want a lot of people to play your game go with the many weapons or else you will have to relie heavily on some thing else beside battles for gameplay and it better be good or the game will suck

can picture the same spite with the same weapon and same animation it will drive you crazzy for like 30 min then you stop playing

a major RPG gameplay killer is repetition

to clarify, although gasp i have never played zelda, i believe that this game won't be very similar. it is a turn based tile game, where it will almost be an adventure/strategy game. also, the player may control (at this point) up to 16 knights - it will be beneficial to have many weapons so that they don't all carry the same thing. also, i agree with piccolo, repetition is the death of an rpg. actually, any game in some sense.

unfortunately, i won't actually be working on my game for a while. i broke my shoulder and can only type one handed. it is kind of slow (and annoying) and i'm a little delirious because of the pain killers, and frankly don't feel like it right now. so thanks again for your input - i'm sorry you won't be seeing my game for a while.

i've attached the graphics file for it in case you are interested in seeing what i have done so far.

That is a limitted and limitting concept.

There are plenty of other ways to enhance combat than just swaping weapons. For example, you could have a fighter character have a number of combat styles. Fighting certain creatures requires one combat style, other require different ones. As the fighter gains in levels, he gets new combat styles.

You can also give fighter characters a number of special moves (ala FF3, with Sabin, Edgar, Cyan, or Gau, though never as overpowering as these). These can easily give them different options for dealing with various enemies.

Worked just fine for FF2. I spent a lot of time watching Cecil cut people with his sword using the same animation. I spent a lot of time watching Kain perform the same Jump attack. Didn't affect me one bit.

Korval: Well, to be honest, they didn't have the same weapons in FF2 - the weapon sprite changed depending on your weapon. The animation was the same, though ...

Gnolam: I wanted to play JA and JA2 but for some reason never got around to it. Too busy on X-Com I suppose (which is an excellent example of weapons changing how you play). And don't worry about the Goering thing, my history teacher used to call me that all the time.

Piccolo: Agreed in an action game it can be annoying to change very often. Castlevania: Symphony Of The Night managed to have LOADS of weapons but the changing was never really annoying and mosts of the swords were merely novelties but despite that they were a powerful reason to drive the gamer on as finding them was still a real thrill. On the other hand Vagrant Story had loads of weapons but a really clunky interface and the weapon swapping really killed what was otherwise an atmospheric and addictive game. However in a turn-based RPG where you might well be doing the loadout at the start of each level (a la X-Com) or when it's not time-critical I think having a huge variety of weapons is a positive boon because it adds stuff to see. And also I don't see it as a case of giving the player the sword at a particular juncture, as if I were designing a game I'd make it their choice to buy an expensive sword at the expense of getting better armour or I'd hide the swords so they could find them earlier in the game if they were thorough, thus dramatically improving replayability and alternate play styles.

Bad luck on the shoulder, btw, aileron. Hope it gets better soon as I always like playing turn-based battlers like Chaos, Laser Squad, et al.

Korval: While I agree that there are many ways you can vary things, I think having perhaps two different elements which you combine is about the most I can handle with my head. There have been some games that I've really no enjoyed because not only did I have to take into account weapon/armour of me and what I was hitting (which is fine) but also bonkers stuff like zodiac signs and all sorts of other guff, however multiple attacks where you can in effect boost agility at the expense of damage is nice, but again it's kinda' trampling on the toes of having different weapons with agility and damage modifiers. At least that's my opinion, anyway...

You just have to have the twig. The only thing it can do is blind your enemy, and that requires two attacks unless you have two twigs, and the chance of succeding doesn't really exist.;D

What good is hiding powerful weapons early in the game? If they get them, then the game suddenly becomes easy. If they don't, then the game is experienced as it was designed.

There's a reason why you don't want the player to have access to uber-gear, no matter how much they look for it, at the beginning of the game. If it's just the difference between SwordDamage 1 and SwordDamage 1.01, then the user won't care that they just found a new weapon. They only care if the weapon is significantly better/different from the one they are carrying.

I expect more out of players.

As I pointed out, it is a question of where you want to provide choices to the player. If you want a diversity of weapons, with abilities associated with them, you may do so. If you want to provide choices via a diversity of skills, where a weapon is just a tool, you may do so as well. In general, I've always felt that the latter seems more reasonable, as most people don't master both short-sword and Rapier (these are 2 fundamentally different weapons), but they are both valid choices in game design. They, also, should be mutually exclusive: you either provide choices with weapon assortment or with skills.

Also, something I forgot to mention. With skills, you don't just have one attack that you see over and over. You have a multitude of attacks that you can fight with. Indeed, a fighter might have as many attacks as a wizard has spells.

I wouldn't be hiding a stupidly powerful weapon, I just mean hiding something that gets the player a little ahead of the game for a few levels. And besides, only one member of their party would have this sword so it's not like the whole squad is suddenly tooled up to the nines. I like hidden surprises in games like that.

And as for the player not caring about incremental increases in damage (more than the somewhat facetious 1% you point out there), if the sword doesn't cost them a bean, why wouldn't they upgrade? It's no skin off their nose.

As for expecting more out of players, I think that's a matter of personal choice of game design. I would rather convey nuance in the game through more sophisticated AI than multiple attacks. Besides, I'd hate to be the poor bugger animating all those different attacks.

That said, I think something like Final Fantasy Tactics strikes an excellent balance with regards to weapons only working for certain classes and multiple attack styles.

As for wizards having loads of spells, well that's true but soldiers can use many different weapons. Okay, they can't chop and change like a wizard can, but they don't lack versatility. I should point out that if I were to make a game it'd probably be more about having wizards in charge of creatures (a la Chaos) and so the creature's innate abilities would probably be what made you choose them for the job, and so multiple attack types would be much more limited.

Oh, and while I agree that it makes more sense that a character would master a particular weapon in several manners rather than a wide breadth of them, I'm talking about a game with fire-breathing dragons in it so realism can go hang.

hey Graham Goring you misread my post i Agreed with having many weapons it adds and extra touch to any Rpg

Korval: i thing your talking about something like
Legend of Legaia
those games have no replay value look how fames it is

i Agreed with Graham Goring leaving out the weapons takes a big chunk out of you game play and strategy and the game battles will be come nothing more than holding down one button while the cursor auto goes though the battle menu

I didn't read Plucky's post, but here are some suggestions, including your originals:

Fist/Foot
Brass knuckles
Claw
Cestus
Katar
Hand axe
Double-edged axe
Double Axe
War Axe
Pikeaxe
Halberd
Pitchfork
Trident
Spear
Knife
Dagger
Short Sword
Broadsword
Bästard Sword <-- DAMN YOU, CENSORSHIP!
Two-handed Sword
Claymore
Rapier
Cutlass
Sabre
Falchion
Dai-katana
No-dachi
Club
Staff
Bo
Nunchaku
Whip
Flail
Morning Star
Swordbreaker
Bow
Longbow
Hand Crossbow
Crossbow
Automatic crossbow
Arbalest
Throwing axe
Throwing dagger
Shuriken
Grenade
Alchemist's Water
Bolas
Chakram

That's all I can think of right now, I'm afraid.

What about the times when there are only 2 or even 1 person in the party?

If they had to go off the beaten path to get something, if they had to intensionally put of progressing the plot for some time, they should be rewarded with something a little more significant than a 5% improvement. And, if it's much more than that, then you've thrown a wrench in all your design work for the next few "levels"; the user will be playing a different game than what you want him to be playing.

Based on what do you make this assertion? Bad games of the past?

Regarding getting better weapons early on;

What about if the player has to go on an optional sidequest to get the weapon (which would only offer something like a 10% improvement, and you can buy that weapon later on for the rest of your party anyway) ? This would give the player a nice incentive to do it (remember, games are about having fun, not just getting big weapons), and a nice little reward to boot if he's successful.

That's how I would normally do it, X-G... if I was thinking so linear.

Personally I don't deal with such problems. Go wherever you want in the game, do whatever you can, but have fun trying to do it without making proper preparations. I'll have amazing weapons all over the place (in my game).. the only problem is that in order to get them you need to get it from the corpse of a big demon or what have you.. who, of course, isn't a corpse yet.

I think you guys talk different magnitudes here.

Graham says he wants to hide a better weapon in the early regions of the game. This weapon will give one party member a light advantage for the next couple of levels.

It's not a balancebreaking uberwaffe we're talking about here.

Anyway... I think if the player takes the time to search the environment, he should get a goodie.

To ensure that it's not used as a fun killer ("You can find a good weapon here") have several places the weapon could be. Even better, use different kinds of weapons and different locations at random.
The locations should be wide spread, so power games searching all possible locations won't like it - ane maybe consider it "not worth the effort"

Those interested in searching the environment will like it (as long as the places are all general interesting as well... have some stuff happen even at places without the weapon).

How do you know that the number of party members will go down to 1 or 2?
It's Grahamn's game... and while you might have a fluctuating number of members, that doesn't mean that the same is true in his game.

And even if he the single party member fights alone - all he has is a slightly better weapon. If using that weapons eats energy (tech points, mana, what ever) using it has a limit, esp. since lower level chars normally have less mana / tech points.

And even if not... it won't be that unbalancing.
Assume your normal combat situation: hero against several foes. Let's say 3.

Normally he'll need 3 hits to kill one of the baddies. No he might do it with 2 if he rolls good. Even if he has a rare chance of a single hit kill, it wouldn't make a big difference.

He would still get danage from the other foes. The battle will be out sooner, so he get's less damage. He'll level up faster.
But then he'll find himself in an area with monsters which are weaker than him -> slower level progression.

The worst thing that could happen is that the player rushes the start of the game.
But: Since he's more the explorer type anyway (that's how he found that weapon in the first place) it doesn't matter.

If the power gamer found the weapon in the second pass, it doesn't matter either, since his goal is to get to the real stuff as fast as possible.
He might get bored by the fights in the beginning of the game (the power game might not be the biggest fan of your normal RPG story line either. While I don't consider myself a munchkin, I think to much text is disturbing. Some talks in town giving me some bg info is ok. Cutscenes at the major turning points: Great. But pages of text I have to scroll through... yikes. If you do this, you have to be a very good writer. If you can create texts on par with planescape:tourment go on. If not, stick with the normal, short texts. Please)

Long story short: Encourage the player to explore and do sidequests by offering him rewards if he does.

Piccolo: Sorry, my bad.

Korval: What Spellcaster said.

Spellcaster: Exactly.

X-G: Yup. Ooh, nice weapon list, too.

But that does not necessitate "weapon". It could just as easily be a magical pendant, a new piece of armor, etc.

Also, I tend to dislike the standard RPG conventions of random stuff hidden in random places (crates, etc) for no apparent reason. If there's armor to be found, it should be found either on a dead body or in someone's dwelling.

I really never understood why the Final Fantasy games had to hide stuff for you. If they wanted you to find it, then either there should be a sidequest where the reward for helping someone out is the item/money, or monsters should drop more gold (monsters having gold is, also, very silly, but it's hard to have a game where the only source of income is other people).

One of the fundamental differences between spell-casters and fighters is that fighters don't eat up resources to do damage. They can keep fighting indefinately. Spell-casters can do more damage, but they pay for it by using up a consumable resource (magic points, spell slots, etc). Voilating this fundamental tennant causes a problem; there is no longer a difference between fighters and spell-casters. If you do that, then, well, you really only have one kind of character.

On the assumption that you're making RPG's like RPG's are today, rather than trying to do something new and innovative.

Yeah, let's not be non-linear, and let's send the player on a new and innovative quest that will yield him exactly nothing in the end.

From time to time, if you have to choose between fun for the player and logic you should choose fun.

You won't be able to make the game realistic anyway. No chance. And I doubt I player starts up a FRPG to worry about logic.
It's like with movies. You enjoy the movie, then you enjoy nitpicking the flaws.
Also, another little known fact: Most gamers are not even coders. They might not even ask them selfs why there was TheItem hidden behind that wall.

And if you take a look at the classic legends, you'll find that they are full of stuff that was lost / hidden / teleported away, etc. Who cares?

Why is the hero group always the first group in a certain area to clean the dungeon? Because it's no fun to walk through an empty dungeon and count the monsters another group has slain.

Says who?
Just because you don't know an RPG system / a game requiring the fighter to pay for his special moves, you shouldn't assume that there is no such system.

In fact, there's no reason why spellcaster need to pay with mana.
That's just a part of the game mechanic. If you use D20 rules, your spellcasters won't use mana points. They'll simply cast their spells.

Now that is so wrong I'm not sure what to say
If you abstract "character" on a high enough level you're absolutely right. But on a high enough level you could say the same even if you have mana points.

Whether something eats points or not does not define the character. From a system point of view, the character is defined by what he can do.

You could use a system in which "magery" is just a skill like "computer hacking".
Spells might be just skills as well which require a certain amount of magery.

If you want to the spellcaster to be different from the fighters, what you have to do is to change the way they level up.

Assume you get a certain number of "Character Points" each level up.
And you need to distribute these points on your spells, your strength, your skills, etc.
Then using the same mechanics, you can build any character you like.
Want to be a ninja? No problem. You'll need fighting, acrobatics, stealth, weapons and some physique... so you'll distribute your points on these skills / attributes in a way you like - so your character becomes closer to the image of a ninja you have in mind. You might even add some simple spells just for effect.

If you play a wizard, you'll place all your points in attributes boosting your spells and learning / improving your spells. Which means the physical aspect won't get the increase characters will get who don't need spells. Or your mage won't be as powerful as normal mages, but can survive a sword strike - it's your choice then.

Um... I must admit that this sentence is pretty funny- esp. after your comments on rpg engines above which reflect the compuetr game mechanics of the 80s.

*cough*FFIX*cough*Steiner*cough*

There're more than enough game systems which have mechanics for both physical, mental and magical fatigue.

And since a manapoint like systems feels wrong (It just doesn't sound natural) why not saying that performing an action requires you to roll against a certain difficulty level.
Each time you try to perform an action you increase an internal counter- The value of this counter modifies the difficulty level of the action.

So, instead of not being able to do a whirlwind attack, it does less damage or could be counter-attacked.
Instead of not being able to cast magic at all, your chance of spell failure raises.

And I think something like this could be comunicate to the player in-character (without using game mechanics). He could get a headache, walk slower, bend forwards to catch his breath (think Luigi in Luigi's Manison for a very good example of in-character status reports).

I didn't beat Neverwinter Nights to see all the items I had collected. I beat Neverwinter Nights to find out what happened at the end. I felt that I had a personal score to settle, and I wanted to settle it.

The last non-linear RPG I played was more of an adventure game (StarControl2). Granted, I don't play too many computer RPG's. Besides, non-linear game development is very difficult; it's hard to keep a good plot going when the user is allowed to change it.

So, explain why finding arbiturary equipment in arbiturary places is fun?

But they were never in arbiturary places.

FF3e did it. There was a part where Gerad's gang looted a dungeon before you got there.

Who says I didn't? WildArms did it, and it's my 3rd favorite RPG. Chrono Trigger did it too, and it's my 2nd favorite. FF2e did not, but it is my #1.

You may have missed this, but I never mentioned "mana points" or any name of that kind. I said, "resources," which is a more abstract term.

A resource is something that is consumed. That could be FF-style Magic Points, D&D-style spell slots, life-energy, or any arbiturary thing. Resources, also, include Cure potions, magic-restoring potions, or any other consumable item.

The point I was making is that Wizards, as a general rule, require some form of resource in order to be useful. Fighters, as a general rule, do not. But, this is why Wizards get brutally powerful spells that can target multiple enemies, and Fighters do not.

This is one of the places FF3e failed utterly. Take Sabin, for example. He was a strong fighter with just the Fight command. However, he gained spell-like abilities with is Blitz attacks. These attacks consumed no resourses. Because of that, there was little purpose of using a resource-limited effect like Magic when you had him around. A number of Fighter-type characters cause this problem; because they have spell-level powers but no resource limitations, they over-power actual spell-casters (until you get Ultima).

From a combat point-of-view, a character (let's say he's a Mage) who can deal 500 points of damage to each of 4 monsters 8-times per day is obviously weaker than a character (a Warrior) who can deal 500 points to each of 4 monsters at will. How much that Warrior's damage has to drop before the Mage is put on an even keel depends on a number of factors.

If the only way the Mage can get his spells back is rest (D&D-style), then the Warrior has to be significnatly weaker. Probably on the order of 100 points to each of 2 monsters or even less. If there are cheap potions available that can get the Mage back to casting this spell, thus turning the spells-per-day resource into the how-many-potions-you-can-afford resource, then the Warrior can do more damage to be even.

That the effect doing damage is a spell rather than some nifty sword-move is immaterial; the point is X damage over Y creatures is done via action Z. If action Z takes resources, then the user must manage those resources. If it does not require resources, then the effect should not be on par with effects that do require resources.

Resource management is part of the game; it is part of the combat system. And, fundamentally, it's what makes Wizards interesting (and one of the things that made FF2 my #1 pick).

If both Fighters and Wizards use resources, and use the same resources (like Chrono Trigger, all Tech skills use MP), then there is really no difference between an actual Wizard or a Fighter. You treat them the exact same way.

That's a pretty hefty assumption. I've not seen a non-table-top RPG that pulled this off well. FF Tactics was atrocious at it. Neverwinter Nights was OK, but the actual combat mechanics were awful.

Besides, if you don't allow this, then you can actually use the character's class, etc, as plot points.

This is a really bad idea. It is vital for the user to see a number. They can see other things that clue them in to the fact that the character is "fatigued", but they really need a number. The reason for this is so that the player can make an informed choice: "Can I use ability X without depeleting resource Y too far?" This is the fundamental question of resource management.

There's a lot here, but I want to comment on one thing:

It's not hard to do at all.
Kill a wolf, get his fur. Sell the fur at a trader.
Kill a demon, get his fangs, wings, skin, eyes, what have you.. sell them to a trader.

Final Fantasy VIII did it bad though.. Income based on a test you take.. wtf were they thinking? People wouldn't be able to cheat it?

Anyway, I can't keep up with all the posts.. but I want to comment! heh

Korval:

Quote: "But that does not necessitate "weapon". It could just as easily be a magical pendant, a new piece of armor, etc."

Oh, I quite agree that it doesn't have to be a weapon, it could be armour, potions, spell scrolls, a load of currency. Whatever.

Quote: "Also, I tend to dislike the standard RPG conventions of random stuff hidden in random places (crates, etc) for no apparent reason. If there's armor to be found, it should be found either on a dead body or in someone's dwelling."

I don't like leaving stuff just around, either. I wasn't advocating just sprinkling daggers and swords around like they were hundreds & thousands. It's obviously far more atmospheric if you find something near a corpse or hidden in a chest in a locked room, or hidden at a location that's specified in a scroll somewhere.

Um Korval... for some reason our discussions all follow this scheme:

Somebody: I want to do Foo
Korval: This is bad because of Mööp
Me: Don't assume he wants to use Mööp, he could prefer something else
Korval: But then it will be all fubar beccause of Knortz!
Me: Not really. There're a lot of games not using Knortz at all
Korval: I know. All the games not using Knortz are on my Top10 list.

Ok, let's see:

Ok, what we have here is a combination of two very unique elements. You and NWN.
Other people might have fun looking around, enjoying the environment, etc.
And in other games (say, DiabloII, Pokemon, etc.) collecting stuff is part of the fun. You tend to grab a very specific example, use this as an example why this boosts up your position and then if somebody tells you that there're other ways as well you go like "I know that! I like that way best"

You said "arbiturary". He said "early in the game".

One game did it. Once.
In other words: If this would happen all the time it might be realistic, but not fun.

The idea behind a rpg is that you get better all the time, so you can beat the big boss in the end.
It would be pretty boring if another hero did this at the beginning of the game already, and all you could do is run around in the town all the time

Fallout is skill based since they use GURPS for their game mechanics.
But that's beside the point... I thought you're the one wanting innovation here, walking new paths instead of reusing what has been done before all the time?

A character class is just a template. Even D&D allows multiclassing now.
Why do you want to limit yourself to a class instead of what the class means?
Or let the NPCs react on what they see? Somebody in shiny armor with a holy symbol on his shield might be a paladin.
If his name is well known people might react if he introduces himself.

IMO that's much better then checking if there's a "Paladin" in the group, since it would allow them to disguise themselfs as Paladins to sneak into a castle... which would give the social skills like disguise, bluff, diplomacy and the other charisma based skills a certain use

That, of course, doesn't change the fundamental point of my statement: the fun doesn't have to be in "getting the goods." Enjoyment can be found in other parts of the gameplay.

I prefer to use actual, concrete examples rather than generalities.

Are you even paying attention to the conversation? Let's review:

You made a poor assumption; namely that I had not played an RPG with such a system. I called you on it, pointing out that, not only had I played such games, I had enjoyed some of them quite well. However, I also pointed out that my favorite game of the genre did not take this route, thus supporting my position (at least, for my tastes).

In short, what I said was, "Yes, I have played many such games, and even enjoyed them. However, I did so in spite of their using these systems, not because of them."

Which has little bearing on the intension of my statement. You pointed out the tradeoff between "realism" and "fun". I asked you to explain the source of "fun" that would override the sense of realism.

In what way? Is it in some way impairing the party's ability to kill stuff (which is the fundamental purpose of loot, after all)? If it isn't, then so be it.

Also, it could be a nice running gag, for a few levels.

Yes, but there's a fine line between innovation and crap. Designing a point-based system that is balanced is very difficult. If you fail at it, you fail big-time; the game is either too easy (through the use of loop-holes, mostly) or too difficult.

Take D&D, 3rd edition, for example. There are certain combinations of feats, stats, and skills that allow a high-level Monk, in combat with multiple targets, to have upwards of 20+ attacks in one round. Clearly not the intension of the game designers. But it shows how easy it is to make the combinatorical error that leads to loop-holes and exploits.

First, D&D always allowed multiclassing. Or, at least, 2nd edition AD&D did (for non-humans. Humans had dual-classing).

Second, that is only one way to think of it. You can think of class in the FF2e fashion: Cecil is a Dark Knight; it is a fundamental part of who he is. He remains so until as such time he climbs Mount Ordeals and ascends to become a Paladin Knight. Kain is a Dragoon Knight.

Rydia is a Caller. She happens to be the last Caller on the planet. If she suddenly takes up a different hobby, she would be losing what makes her special and unique.

Also, you lose out on the ability to make a unique character. Take Rosa, for example. She is a White Mage. However, she has a unique ability: Aim. This makes her bow&arrows automatically hit their mark. In a flexible class system, you wouldn't want to have that kind of power go to any particular class. And you wouldn't want it to be a feature of the White Mage class itself. Aim is a unique feature of Rosa herself, but you could never implement it as such in a flexible class system. The potential for exploits is just too great.

Allowing the player to freely modify classes also brings the same kind of potential trouble that I mentioned before.

You're not thinking of the kind of plot points I am. For example, let's say that the main character is a soldier from the great Kingdom of X. His class is, "Soldier of X Kingdom." He uses the skills taught to him as a "Soldier of X Kingdom."

As a plot point, however, he is fated to discover that the Kingdom of X is evil, and he has to turn against it. His class remains "Soldier of X Kingdom."

If he were to suddenly drop this class in favor of, say, "Generic Fighter" or "Magus of the Dark Robes", then the whole plot point of him having to go up against his own kingdom vanishes. It becomes the story of a "Generic Fighter" or "Magus of the Dark Robes" taking up arms against Kingdom X. Sure, in this case, you might be able to work around the class changes, as his background doesn't change. But the example itself shows one of the problems with having flexible classes from a plot point of view.

What if the whole theme of your game's plot is that, when given a particular task to perform, you must take responsibility for that task, even if you don't want to perform it? That kinda flies in the face of free-multiclassing.

The point I was making is that having a fixed class is a design choice with consequences, some potentially positive, others are limiting.

Of course, assuming these skills exist.

Short note regarding realism vs fun: We could probably swish together some realistic games, such as "Doing your taxes 2000" or "Grocery Shopping 2 - The Revenge of the Taco Sauce", but would that be fun to play?

If given the choice between realism and fun, every gamer will choose fun, and so should every game designer. Have a look at Grand Theft Auto 3, for instance. Slamming straight into a car or a motorcycle with a car will produce some results that are damn amusing, but not realistic at all. But who cares? It's damn fun, and that's the important part. I don't care much for realism unless it's an absolute requirement for the game to function, and you can't even have that proper short of virtual reality environments.

Regarding the "Soldier of X" spiel: FF2e?

Sure. It doesn't have to. But people like to collect stuff. Just because you preferred something else in that specific game doesn't mean you shouldn't provide the possibility to collect stuff.

If you quote converstaions, quote them right

That's what triggered my reply.
I assumed that if you had played such games, you'd know that this is not the fundamental difference.

Um. Ok. If you say so.

Ok, let's see... Monsters dropping gold would be an example. Me getting XP points would be an example.
Finding an ancient weapon is an example, since chances are pretty bad that it's yoou who will find it... in fact chances are bad that it's still there in the first place.

The whole Fantasy World is normally pretty unbalanced. You have very powerful, very intelligent monsters which don't rule the world, despite the fact that they easily could.
Dragons don't hunt down in their area.

People can still do their work despite the fact that the forrests are full of monsters. Magic seems to be common but is not commonly used (almost no mundane spells).

The king wants to talk to you. The king has no army / knights to do the job.

The HP system is another tradeoff between realism and fun. The point that you can still fight normally even if you're down to one HP is another example.
That a sword fight lasts longer than 2 rounds is another example.

All this is not realistic. But you don't play games to simulate reality. You play games to have fun.

Yep. That's the archetype idea. It's used to explain quickly to the player who somebody is. "Caine is a Babarian Warrior", "Agathe is a Witch from the Netherwoods".

That's ok. But it's just one way to deal with things. And it's not very realistic. But it can be fun due to it's simplicity.
It's also more easy to create a character that way.
But it's not the only way, neither the best.
Please remember the path that lead us to this point. The idea was that you said that if all classes eat some sort of resources, or if no class eats resources all characters will be alike.

BTW, your answer is again nicely fitting the "I knew that already" sort of answer prototype

No. She would still be a caller. Just a caller with a different hobby.
You can't loose your talants (easily) ... unless you decide that after a certain time of not using a skill / talent it fades away.

Um... if Rosa is defined only by "white mage" + "aim ability" that would be true.
I hope she has some other traits as well. Maybe she even has some sort of background story, motivations?

On the engine level the question should be why she's the only white mage with that ability. How did she get it? Why did she get it?

If it's just there because it is, I'd say that this ability was just a hack to increase her usefulness in the game.
This is normally done if you have a simple system (and not a full blown system of talents / feats / skills, etc).

In fact, if you create each character individually, chances are good your characters have even more personality.

Rosa might be something special within the game, but if you can create your own characters, Rosa could be one-of-her-kind, since everybody will level her up differently.

And even if you have an open, skill based system you can use archetypes, which are simply pre-made characters with a certain amount of points spend already.

I was talking about a skill based system, not a class based one
But even within a class based system you should be able to choose different paths, like the school of magic one prefers most, if one likes to fight if one or two weapons, ranged or melee weapons, prefers stealth or brute force, etc.

You can't loose that class idea, uh?

Anyway. Assume your SoldierX discovers that X is evil. He doesn't want to work for X any longer. Since he's not working for X any longer, he is not a Soldier of X Kingdom any longer.
He still has all the abilities, skills, etc. But soldier of X was his profession. It's no longer his profession.
But if he is a "good" type of guy he will want to fight the Kingdom X now.

BTW, he can't drop his class in favour of a different class, since he had no fix class to begin with.

Even in a mult-class engine, he'd still be a "Soldier of X" (if one decided that classes are bound to countries. I'd think that his class is "soldier" and that soldiers from X can choose from a limited amount of skills / traits) - but if he decided to take another class, say "Magus of the Dark Robes", he'd be a SoldierX(12)/MagusDR(1). Again I'd think that his class should be ( Soldier(12)/Magus(1), and that these specialisations should only influence the skills / feats/ boni he gets).

What you do is to hardcode quests / subquests based on certain classes.
That's not very realistic. But it might be fun.

Of course you can get the same effect without classes.

Good point. But IMO these skill make the difference between Strategy games with cut scenes and rpg. Because Intelligence and Charisma based skills really make up your character

There's a big difference between realism and reality.

It's realistic to have an ogre carry a club.
It's reality to have to go to the grocery store, or do your taxes.

If you ask me, I don't like games that aren't "real". By that I mean they add things just for fun, that do not make sense. The game designer was clearly too lazy to come up with a better way of doing it.
It's not so bad to do some things (everyone understanding the same language for example, but FFX avoided this well). I find it annoying how many games do the same thing over without adding any creative spin to it. Getting currency from something that would never even use currency is one of those things I hate, but must tolerate, in games.
It no longer becomes money.
It becomes game credits. Points. Not money at all.

It's also realistic to break your bones when you jump too far, and it's realistic to have your gun jam if you don't do proper maintenance or swim around a lot with it - it's also realistic to be able to sustain about one goot sword slash before you are incapacitated and mortally wounded, et cetera ...

The point is, people do not want realism - they want fun. If realism is required for the fun, then fair enough - but more often than not the realism comes in the way of fun when you try to impose too much of it.

Let's not forget the fact that RPG characters never have to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, etc ...

Often they do need to eat and sleep. Sometimes you're even given the option of going to the bathroom (FF7)

I'm not saying make EVERYTHING realistic. Just make the stuff that's already similar to reality realistic. A sword is sharp and heavy, and polar bears don't carry around pocket change.

What I mean is that it's gotta make sense at the very least.

Why?
Ogres use clubs only because they are considered wild. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to upgrade to warhammers, esp. if they get hit with them all the time. Or ogres using swords, etc.

Where do Ogres have their homes BTW? In a realistic setting they should have their own villages. And there should be lots of them. If you only have a small Ogre villages, chances are good that these villages would have been destroyed by humans already.

The point is: Your typical fantasy world is off-balance. You have lots of of very powerful creatures, who don't use their powers if they are not faced by the hero

Evil Wizards rule whole countries... and then some deus ex machina explains why they can't use the power if the hero attacks.

Dragons should be the dominant species.
Humans should live in caves (wooden houses are no good idea if Dragons are around).
In fact, humanity might not even play an important role, since there others, more powerful intelligent species around.

For a realistic world you have to consider the way the world has evolved. Not only the way it is now. Your normal hi-fantasy world is pretty, even if you consider dragons and magic to be "real" in the world.

But it doesn't matter. As long as the player has fun

One might look at the "animals carrying gold" thing as a rationalization of selling pelts, etc - if there's no extra use for a polar bear pelt, the only thing the player would do with it was sell it anyway. Less realism, more fun.

Although some times it just gets way too weird ... in some game, I believe you can find musical instruments on the bodies of insects.

Yeah, that's more along the lines I'm talking about too X-G. Just not good at picking them out, because I usually don't play those games long.

SC: The ogre thing was a small example. An ogre carrying a battle axe would be just as realistic, or an ogre carrying a sword, no weapon at all, or what have you. What wouldn't be "realistic" is if the ogre was carrying a bag of candy, or if he had an attack called 'Kiss The Hero'..

I don't really like the thought of ordinary human heroes defeating huge monsters and things with ordinary weapons. Not very realistic either. That's usually why magic, powers and races get involved.

I think some realism is important to have fun. I don't play games to sit and 'play games'. I want to get out of this reality thing I'm stuck in. If it's sitting there screaming "I'M A GAME YOU MORON!" at the top of it's lungs, it's just not giving me what I want. (Mind you, multiplayer games are an exception for me here)

everything you all said ties-into and depends on the type of monster leveling system you pick whether if it's the system where you dived your map up into chunks and have certain level monsters in each area or you feed you player monsters to keep he/she at a certain level or have the monsters levels go up with the hero player level or the group average level

edit: and monsters can eat gold you know or eat people who have gold on them

Basically, one should think this way: If a certain feature is not fun for the player, don't include it. If you can rationalize to add more fun, then do so. But try to keep your limits.

Oh, and regarding ogres and swords; Using a sword requires finesse and skill, which ogres (big, bulky things with limited brainpower and agility) tend to lack. A club, an axe, or a warhammer requires much less finesse, so it's pretty realistic for an ogre to be wielding one of those; it's basically just smash-them-over-the-head-as-hard-as-you-can.

don't just go by your definition of fun let other people play your game what is/isnot "fun" is and will be different for other people

That's why testing and feedback is important.

That doesn't make your assumption any less wrong.

OK, so let's look at Chrono Trigger.

Is there really a difference between Crono and Marle? Well, Crono uses swords and Thunder Magic. Marle uses Cross-bows and Water/Ice Magic. Outside of those details, (and the fact that Marle does less damage with Fight than Crono), they're basically the same. They both eat up resources. They are both MageWarriors.

Contrast this with FF2e.

Kain is a Dragoon. He can Fight or perform a Jump attack. He can keep doing these things forever. He is very different from Rydia, whose fighting skills aren't worth bothering with. However, she can lay waste to vast hordes. Of course, this consumes magic, which is not unlimitted.

The notion of who consumes resources and who doesn't is a fundamental divide. If everybody consumes resources, then you play everybody the exact same way. However, if some consume resources, and some don't, then you change how you play based on the battle.

In FF2e, you rely more on your fighter-type characters in normal combat than your wizards. And, even then, your wizards tend to be using whatever weapons they have rather than casting precious spells. In boss fights, that changes; you go full-burn on your wizards and have your fighters stand in reserve (to heal your wizards).

Contrast this with FF3e. Essentially, everybody can learn magic. Therefore, the pool of resources is huge. You burn magic whenever you feel like it (when an enemy has an elemental affiliation). You do this because your party of 4 is not likely to run short of magic before you get to a place where you can Tent or otherwise recover magic.

If everybody does the same job, then the entire point of having different characters evaporates; you may as well have 4 characters that are all the same.

Someone finds it. You're playing the part of the character that does.

But this doesn't explain why collecting weapons is fun.

Why is any of what you have listed fun? I don't like these conventions, and they don't have to be used.

Defending lazy design on the basis of, "It's fun!" without providing any evidence of this "fun" is bad form.

So tell me, what is the difference between Crono and Marle? Besides details like, "Crono is better against creature X?" Do they get used any differently? No; they both cast magic and consume the MP resource.

If Crono didn't consume magic, then they would be two characters that are played and used in entirely different fashions. In this case, the choice of one over the other is, "Do I need more damage-over-time or more instantaneous damage, but resource consuming?"

Oh, the two characters, in terms of plot, look, etc. are different, but in the terms of a combat system, they're virtually identical.

But does it fit the character's personality?

Rydia's "character class" (whether it's an explicit name or an implicit grouping of skills) is more than just something attached to the character; it is a part of who she is. And a big one at that. She's pretty hardcore about being a Caller; for her to spend any time not "leveling up" (once again, whether it is an explicit class or implicit skills) in Caller would be an anathema to her personality.

As such, allowing the player to do this would be destroying who she is. She becomes, "Just another piece of clay" or set of Lego blocks for the player to play with.

Yes, but none of that matters in combat. We are talking about combat abilities, after all.

In combat, what makes her unique is that she has White Magic and can effectively use arrows (thus allowing her to do damage from the back row effectively).

It may very well be just a hack they added in to make her more useful.

And, as I pointed out before (which, I noticed, you ignored completely), having a "choose-your-own-character" system is very dangerous, as well as destroys the differences between characters. After all, if Character A could have been what Character B is now, what makes Character A important (outside of plot points revolving around A)?

Whether you have clearly-defined classes or not, the statement is still true; if you screw up even slightly in the design, you're screwed.

That's part of a character's personality. Unless you're willing to swap pages of dialog based solely on an arbiturary choice of each member of the party (and potentially, subquests and main-story quests), then the character's personality as shown in plot moments will not be the same as that revealed by the character's choice of skills/class.

And, of course, doing all that work has little appreciable gain; the player won't really appreciate it, and it does little to make the game more interesting.

No, what I'm doing is telling a story. A story involves people. That the main character used the Vorpal LongSword +5 or the +2 Dancing Thundering LongSword is unimportant; therefore, the player can swap weapons as provided. If the plot requires that he uses the newly-forged +12 Hackmaster Sword of Doom, then the player either doesn't get a choice, or he will not be able to win/progress without using this sword.

In a story, a character that has been a swordsman all his life doesn't suddenly take up wizardry; he doesn't have the patience or the know-how. If he's been using a short-sword since he first learned how to fight, then he's not going to suddenly switch to using a 2-handed GreatSword, even if it is the Sword of Ultimate Power (OK, for that, he might decide to switch).

The point is, if you're making a story, you don't want the player to be able to interfere in the story. You want to have the character's personalities, as defined in the story, be the basis of their skills. You want the story to proceed along the guidelines that you write when you wrote the story.

If you wrote a story that allows branching, fine. If you wrote a linear one, that's fine too. The point is, the story is what matters.

NWN desperately tried to make Intelligence and Charisma matter, but it just didn't work out. Certainly, they didn't matter one way or another to the story.

Besides, I much prefer "Strategy games with cut scenes" like FF2e to "RPG's" like NWN.

That's the fundamental idea. It's just lazy design to accept some convention (like arbiturary stuff found in various places where it doesn't belong) just because that's the convention for avoiding Reality Issue X. If you can't make Reality Issue X fun, then at the very least, you could try to use a different convention for Reality Issue X.

Take Earthbound, for example. Killing monsters didn't get you money, per se. You got money by going to an ATM machine, and finding out that your Dad had added more to your account. Granted, this money is added in proportion to the number and type of monsters you have slain since the last time you were there. But, the point is that you can work around un-fun reality issues without resorting to the same old tricks.

Many games cause you to take fall damage. It may not quite be physically precise, but the damage is there. Some people would dearly love to have gun maintenance/jamming be a part of Planetside. And Bushido Blade was, apparently, successful enough with it's more realistic approach to sword damage to warrent a sequel.

The point is that many people find these kinds of things to be fun and enjoyable. Just because you aren't one of them doesn't mean that there is no fun to realism.

Watch TV, read books, go to a movie. What you will find is that characters are never visibly shown eating, sleeping, or going through any of these kinds of routine things unless it is important to the story.

It's not so much "more fun", but that you're cutting out the very boring middle man. It's not "more fun" as "less boring".

I make games for other people as part of my job. When I'm doing it on my time, I make the games that I want to make.

I know, and that's my point; no one cares about that stuff, because it's boring. The same should go for less obvious things.

If we have a scale that goes from "Boring" at one end and "Fun" on the other, it's higher on that scale, okay?

If you say so.
Of course that's one way to handle it. You could also make one more effective in melee, the other more effective in ranged combat.
You could give one character the ability to slow enemies down.
You could give one character the ability to use area attacks.
One character could have a good defense, the other a good attack.
You could give one character ESP skills.
You could even give one character non-combat skills (shocking ideas, eh?)

Let's assume that these two characters play the same way. That's just a problem with the way this game handles that. It doesn't mean two characters can't be very different even if they both eat resources.
Once again: Don't limit yourself

Because we humans are collectors. We have always been. We also like to show-off with our little toys (wow, I've a +4 sword... nice).
In fact, just the little jingle with the item-found animation is rewarding.
Collecting stuff is fun.
Collecting stuff which makes your character better is oven more fun.
The reason for this is simply reward. You do something, you get a goodie.
Very simple.

Sure. It's my character. If I play a roleplaying game I should be the one in control.
If I'm forced to play a character in a certain way, that takes away the roleplaying.

Nope.
We're talking about a roleplaying system.

Dangerous? Why that?
And again, if you have lots of skills to choose from, and if these skills are balanced, don't you think the player will choose to create a spellcaster to deal with the magic problems, a good melee fighter, a good ranged fighter and some avarage chars?

And even if he wants to create a group of similar chars - no problem.
If you want to play with a group of dwarven knights, play with a group of dwarven knights.

That's the choice of the player.

Great. Then play strategy games. Code and design strategy games.
But don't try to make every game a strategy game

Cool. But then don't be surprised if you're the only one liking them

Show me a videogame that pulls off non-combat skills in a way that doesn't, ultimately, resolve to dice rolling (and is therefore dull and meaningless).

Give me an example of where this is true.

You already threw away your rights to any real roleplaying the moment you left the realm of table-top RPG's and picked up the keyboard/controller. There has never been a game that is as good as a live GM at creating an environment where you can effectively do any real roleplaying.

Either the party characters could be anyone of any class/stat selection, and the game simply ignores these features in terms of plot points, or the party is of specific classes and the game uses these as part of the plot. These are the only selections that are avaliable to you.

No, they will not. Instead, they will find the loop-hole in your system that allows them to make the uber-character, and then use that. Of course, you can say, "I would make sure that there aren't any loopholes", but then you can never be sure that such loopholes don't exist.

Best way to stop bugs from happening is to make it so that bugs can't happen.

Show me a single videogame that can incorporate whatever choices that the player makes, in terms of character development, into the plot.

Dunno why that would be dull and meaningless, but what about Chemists in FFT?

KOTOR? Never played it, but I kinda get that impression (playing light/dark) ...

Using resources in different ways? Ninjas have a limit to weapons they can throw (and how many, and to what effect), mages have magic points, some characters can spend a turn charging/focusing/etc., characters with access to them have items as resources (again, Chemists), or using a resource that builds up over time/damage taken, etc.

Neverwinter Nights has SOME of what Korval's asking for - albeit not too much.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there really a difference between Crono and Marle?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

there is a big difference first of all their starting stats make them different crono can take more hits then marle 2nd their weapons make them different crono triger uses the time battle system Marle fill up her time bar more befor get hit by most monster because she stands far away from the monster then crono

Those aren't big differences, piccolo Those are just slight differences in their stats. That's like saying there's a big difference between a Level 20 Lucca and a Level 23 Lucca The similarity of the characters and special attacks is one of my main gripes with the otherwise excellent Chrono Trigger; the battle system is fairly shallow ...

that is big difference, if crono is dead or dieing; becaues of Marle distance from the monsters she has the abilty to get of ,life, cure or some kind of potion to keep your party up and fighting

What does distance have to do with anything? Lots of monsters have distance attacks, or can get anywhere on the screen on their turn. If Marle is dead or dying, Crono can cast Life or toss her a potion. Same thing. And even if Marle took less damage from being attacked less, Crono gets better health/armor. Evens out.

see you just further proved that theres difference between them replay the game go to the town up the top on the left there a robot fight him and that will prove it even further look at when they take thier places for battle they dont just stand any were each has thier set distance from the monster

This still isn't a big difference. It's not a difference in gameplay, and the effect on the battles is minor at best. The characters are still very similar, especially if you compare the differences between some characters in other games (like FFIV, or FF2e as Korval calls it ). Frankly, I don't even remember Gato hitting me

"You won, you won, here's your prize, wasn't that fun ..."

i dont think thats was the result your first time playing the game that robot was suppose to be you first battle you obviously play it and then went to the forest first the 2nd time around

edit: or you could have cheated and tab up your people

but pettey much the choce affter the starting stats are up to the player

NWN?

OK. Start NWN. Create a halfling rouge. Max DEX and INT.
Play.
Now create a half-orc barbarian. Int 7, Str maxed, dex med.
They will play very differently.

Nope.
Just because you're playing RPGs the same way you play RTS games, this doesn't mean other people do the same.

While this is true, does that mean I have to remove every Roleplaying element from an RPG. Don't think so.

Um. yes.
And then they will remove all their clothes, paint themselfs green, run around the streets and get arrested.

BTW, the problem of munchkins finding dominant strategies applies to all genres, systems. This has no connection to resources what so ever.
And this getting more and more dull
Normally your arguments are much better... take your time to write them. With these weak answers it's no real fun discussing

We are talking about character generation. Not plots here. But still, I'll take the bait.
In NWN your INT/WID and alignment will make a difference.
IN other games you have branches at certain plot positions depening on your character. While this is not the best way to handle this, at least it is a way to handle this.
And in almost all games, it's not the "plot" that changes, but the way your character handles the challenges. So the general plot might be the same, but the story changes.
Instead of simply getting the "chalice of Möööp" because you're a Paladin, you might have to fast talk somebody, or get the trust via a sidequest. Or you try to steal the chalice. Or you try to fasttalk somebody who can then convice the holders to give the chalice to you. Or you disguise yourself as a good paladin and use your bluff skill to get the chalice.

Choosing a different character should not drastically alter the plot - but it will change the way the game is played, the way the game is experienced by the player.

And throw your Story idea overboard. If you want to tell a story, you should write a novel.
I know you like it if the game is made by the short parts between the scripted / rendered story elements, and if you take a look at the success of these games it's a valid way to design a game.
Both diabloII and FF pull this stunt nicely. I chose these games as example because they both use the "game between renderings" style, but to a very different extent. While diablo concentrates on playing, FF concentrates on renderings.

But then you have games like KOTR, NWN, BG, Planescape:Tourment, etc.

I'm pretty sure you are aware that NWN uses the D20 D&D system for determining the outcome of a conversation. As such, it is reduced to dice rolling and therefore boring and meaningless.

And read the annoying garble-speak of low-intelligence characters? No thank you.

But, in general, with a Halfling Rogue, I'd pick up a meat-shield (not surprisingly, a Half-Orc Barbarian) as a henchman. With a Half-Orc Barbarian, I need Rogue skills, so I'll pick up a Halfling Rogue.

The end result: no change.

It doesn't mean other people don't either.

No, but it does mean you have a choice to make, and that this choice has consequences: either make a lot of gameplay that the player will likely never see (to support your multiple methods to solve problem X) as well as taking the change of creating a loop-hole in the combat system that makes Uber-characters, or not.

Dominant strategies is one thing. Unless you don't do any significant testing, you can usually find out where the user can employ a strategy that is considered too powerful. We're talking about breaking the combat system entirely. Like my example with the Monk that can make 20+ attacks per round with a really good base-attack bonus; this is clearly game-damaging im most situations.

Intelligence is used to cast spells as a Wizard. Wisdom gives Monks bonuses.

Outside of these things, INT/WID don't matter. Here's why.

You now have to make sure all the bases are covered. If a character who is not a Paladin comes by, who is unable to do the fast-talking, disguising, or bluffing, you have to make sure that he can still get the item. Which, in this case, means he has to now go off and complete some silly side-quest.

This kinda kills the plot. You're not really progressing the game, because the purpose of the game isn't to get the chalice. Now, whatever it was that you were trying to accomplish is dependent on some sub-task.

Also, it means you have to create a lot of potential gameplay that the user will never see.

Have you ever GM'ed before? You choose the plot based on the avaliable characters, not in spite of them (trust me; I've tried it the other way around. It doesn't work too well). The character's skills and class are part of what makes them who they are; this changes what that character will do.

If you have a party of a Neutral Evil Rogue, a Chaotic Neutral Ranger, and a Chaotic Evil Fighter, as a GM, you're not going to try some "Save the Kingdom" plot. These charaters are just not interested in it, based simply on their choice of alignment and class. You're more likely to go with a "Kill this guy who stole our stuff" or something more personal.

Considering that I find the games on your last list to be failures at being enjoyable overall, I don't see the point you were trying to make. How is the Final Fantasy method of RPG's not viable? After all, FF games are, first and foremost, about telling a story.

As for "If you want to tell a story, you should write a novel," a novel is a different medium for telling stories. It is not a definitive medium; it can never really provide enough details to be definitive. A videogame, like a movie or a TV show, can be much more definitive than a book.

Um... you have played NWN, right?
You did realize that your possible answers change depending on your INT value?
And you do also know that the "dice rolling" in conversations is only used to determine the way NPC react to you? And that this "dice rolling" is heavily influenced by your skills as well?

You also realize that the combat uses dice rolling as well - which should make it as meaninglesss and boring

I guess in your game, you won't have any random element, so the outcome of all actions is deterministic?

In other words: You are creating the same character all the time, and blame the game for it?
Now, that's great

Anyway, create the Barb with normal INT then (8).
The game will still be very different.

Even if you play it as a high-int ranger and a high-int rogue it will be different.
Ot compare a fighter of your choice with a sorc of your choice. Or even a wizard.

Um nope. First of all, you're thinking to fight specific. But even then the way you handle the combat are different.
And why don't you try to play without a meat shield? You know, that's possible.
Don't blame NWN for your lack of imagination

Glad you're not self-centered
Why don't you take a look at the message boards of some NWN community then? Or one of Planescape:Tourment? Or maybe just that of a lucas arts adventure game (being one of the close realtives in regards to story)
Don't assume... check.
Or read the comments people make in the offical forums of some of the rpg developers.

Point is: Most people wanting to play strategy games play strategy games

Um no. You don't hardcode that.
There's no need do. All you do is to specify how much "trust" is needed to get the chalice. Give high boni for being a paladin. Slightly less for being a clerirc.
This covers both the disguise and fast talk situations.
The normal sneak into the house / storm the house requires no special code at all.

<quote>
Intelligence is used to cast spells as a Wizard. Wisdom gives Monks bonuses.

Outside of these things, INT/WID don't matter. Here's why.[/qutote]
First of all, you obvioulsly don't know the d20 system. But that's not a big problem here.
But I guess I've missed the "here's why" part in the text?

A "dominat strategy" is any strategy that allows me to win always. So, playing a monk with 20+ attacks will be a dominant strategy to win the game.
And I'm still not sure why you think that this problem exists only in systems with non-resource.eating epellcasters? (Which was the starting point for that discusssion)

If he can't do either of that, he's is most likely a combat monster. So he should kick in the front door, kill everythjing on his path to get the chalice.
If you don't like that (because of the killing of "good" people) you'll have to go the sidequest route.
But IMO, it would be very hard to create a character not being able to perform any of this taaks - like sneaking in, and trying to get the item without beeing detected.

Nope. Don't create "gameplay". If you want to do that, write a book.
There's no need to hardcode that stuff.

Hardcoding Plot elemeents is so 19990

Yep. If a running D&D campaign, have been shadowrun and Ars Magica and Gurps GM before.

Yep. Correctly.
It changes what they will do. But that doesn't change the plot. It changes the story.

Yep. And they contain always shrinking amounts of game.

But that's not really the point. The idea is that you explain me why games which don't use the FF approach are destined to fail and why hardcoding everything is the only true way of doing things.

And no, I don't think that "Because Korval likes it better, it must be the only right way" counts.

Maybe I should have placed Battle Isle on that list?
It's ok if you don't like them. But it doesn't change the fact that these games (esp. BG, NWN and P:T) are considered milestones. You might not agree here, but that doesn't change the point.

Damn ... FFI was ahead of its time

But really, the games with "hardcoded" plots generally have the good plots. Could things as memorable as Aeris' death happen in those free-roaming games? I'm guessing they have their own appeal, since I've never had occasion to play one But I likes me old-school RPG's

Much as I enjoy these spellcaster vs korval debates they get pretty predictable.

Why don't both of you take a week out of your time and write a combat engine of your choice to illustrate your points and ideas. That would enable Korval to try to create something new and Spellcaster to show the way different characters affect the way the game plays.

It would also let the rest of Allegro.cc judge the merits of each approach in a hands on system.

Hehe
Guess my point is only that I think both ways are possible (and fun), while Korval insists that having a flexible engine breaks everything.
And that every player wants to play the same games in the same way he wants to play them

And a RPG that's reduced to combat is more or less either a strategy or an action game (depending on how the combat is resolved).

Virtual Arm Wrestling?

Seriously, I'd like to see what you can come up with in a week Korval (and you Spell )

How about it?

What I'd like to know is, if these games are so crappy and non-fun, etc, then why did they sell so many copies, and are STILL selling copies long after their release?

The general public has no taste. I thought everybody knew that.

So we ask ourselves; are we making games for ourselves or for the people? If you're making them for yourself, that's fine, but don't complain when your game sells exactly two copies. If you're making them for the public, be ready to compromise.

I was just being cynical. The more positive view is:

You choose which you think is more accurate.

No, but then again, I played it through only once as a Monk (too boring for a re-play). Intelligence wasn't a big deal for me.

In any case, did that really affect anything? Could I convince Fenthick that Desther was evil, regardless of my Int score? No; the game didn't let me.

As such, the story isn't significantly effected. Oh, sure, some small details may be flexible (which weapons you use, how to accomplish sub-quest X, etc), but nothing substantial; the actual plot remains the same. If the choices ultimately don't matter, if I can't actually be an evil character (even though my alignment clearly says, "Chaotic Evil", which, by all rights, means I shouldn't care one bit about the fate of Neverwinter), what's the point of having them in there?

It's still dice rolling.

The problem with dice rolling is that it takes something that could have been expressed as "You can do it or you can't" and adds a third possibility, "Maybe you can do it."

Good game design says that, if the player cannot (yet) accomplish task X, the player should be immediately told that task X is impossible, and some reason why (possibly with a solution). There shouldn't be this nebulous, "I might be able to accomplish the task."

If you allow for a middle-ground, and the task has no penalty for failure, then if it is at all possible to succeed, the player will eventually do so. So there's no real point in making the player sit there trying over and over again (since that would be dull). If the task has a penalty for failure, then a poor roll of the dice has just, potentially, denied a player the ability to do something nifty and inventive.

Actually, for the most part, yes.

Take FF2e, for example.

If Cecil attacks someone, hits them, and does 300 damage, on his next attack he, almost certainly, will:

a: Hit the monster.
b: Do 300 damage.

This is very consistent. Damage varies, but not by more than 10% or so (I've got a document that explains, in depth, how the FF2e combat system works).

Hitting is, also, very consistent. Except for weapons that have hit-percentage problems (arrows outside of Rosa's hands), or attacks from the back row, if you hit something once, you will almost certainly hit it the next time. Misses do happen, but they are quite rare.

Sure, it's possible, but that doesn't mean it is wise. Rather than drawing out the combat system, by making it difficult to kill stuff, I'd just rather take the most direct route to victory.

There is a clearly correct choice, and a clearly incorrect one.

You're calling me self-centered? I'm not the one who, basically, just made the claim that everybody else likes NWN/Planetscape/etc-style games (which just happen to be games you like). I never made such a claim; I said that people liking PC-RPGs does not preclude the existence of people liking console RPGs either.

I don't care if the people in the NWN/Planetscape/arbiturary other game community like the kinds of games I do. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not, FF-style games are popular, and moreso than pc-RPG's.

You still have to make sure that arbiturary character X can complete the mission. If he can neither sneak into nor storm the house, and he failed his bluff-check, he's screwed, and the game is over.

The discussion has moved on to a question of fundamental RPG design; the issue of resource management has long sense been left behind.

Welcome to the conversation; glad you could make it

Yes. And RPG's were so much more fun back then.

I didn't say they were destined to fail (though I won't bother playing them). I said that it was a choice that has consequences; among those consequences is that the design process is much more difficult.

By whom? People who are already pre-disposed to like them? Show me a single die-hard FF-fan who considers NWN to be superior to his favorite FF game. Actually, show me a large number of FF-fans who did so; that would indicate a paradigm shift.

All that being said, I've always had this idea in the back of my mind for a game that builds a plot for you, based on how you play your character. It would create an appropriate "love-interest" character, an enemy "foil" (a guy who frequently gets in your way), various other heros who could be potential party members, and so forth, based on your character and how you interact with others. The game would be fairly open-ended, in terms of how you beat the game. Each of the three classes (fighter, wizard, rogue) would have their own advantages and weaknesses.

More importantly, rather than a system based on dice rolling, it is based on the player's skill with the character. Fighters, depending on weapon choice, would have a number of different maneuvers, which are based off of controller movements. Casting spells is not automatic; the user would have to perform some dexterious action with the controller (I haven't quite decided what, though). And using rogue skills would require actually doing something, like making a choice as to how to fast-talk someone based on the conversation, etc (it isn't just selecting Fast-Talk from the list of choices).

That's just silly. I, for example, don't much enjoy sports games, but I like console-style RPGs. To say that a sports game sucks because I don't like it isn't sane - games aren't intended for everyone, just those who like that kind of game. The trick is making a game a lot of people happen to like.

You should play the game before you start throwing assumptions around.
BTW diplomacy and the other inter-character skills as WIS based. So, no, you INT score won't help you there.

You don't know the game at all. You played it once (as a monk) and you already found the best way to play it? Now that's pretty impressive.

Um yes. Sure. Whatever.
I play games to have fun. Beating the game might be part of the fun. But removing the fun from the game by choosing a strategy I don't like seems strange.

Oh... and you're sure you're playing a choactic evil monk?

Yep.

Uh, sorry then.
But you could just answer the question why all games with non-resource eating spellcasters suck?
Just that I can check that question on my list of "things I really need to know".
I've realized that you like to switch topics to avoid having to submit that you're wrong, but I prefer to stay on topic and answer questions first.

You said it would make all characters alike, IIRC.

Now that is a good one
I'm just not sure if I like the answer more, or that you consider "die-hard-FF-fans" the only group of people have the right to declare milestones

BTW, I don't want to prove that NWN or any other game is better than Your-Squate-Game-Of-Choice.
In fact, all I want is that you realize that there is more than FF out there

Open your mind, young grasshopper.
On the other hand, it might be hard to find a die-hard-FF fan who thinks that having an open mind is a good idea. So I'm not sure if I can convince you.

Anyway, I doubt that this will lead us anywhere.
So maybe we can pull this into another direction?

There's one thing I'd really like to know: How can you create an innovative FF clone?

If it takes more than 1 full play-through to actually be said to play a game, the game is clearly poorly designed.

That was a more general point of the post than anything I actually tried. But the point is still valid: your aligment clearly is just for show and a little flavor in conversations.

Of course, you ignored the accurate part about your own self-centeredness. And the fact that I didn't say that there was only one real way to design RPG's.

I never said that. What I said is that it removes the distinction between fighters and wizards, which causes each character to be played similarly. As such, a fundamental difference between characters has been lost, and a dimension of gameplay has been lost along with it (resource management).

The topic changed when you brought up issues of non-combat skills and so forth (go ahead; look at the thread). Resource management & wizards was purely a combat mechanic, so by bringing up non-combat skills, you effectively changed the topic to a more fundamental disagreement.

That is another consequence.

We both know I never said that only "die-hard-FF-fans" have the right to declare milestones. However, it makes no sense for fans of a subset of particular genre to declare milestones without consulting others as well.

You may consider NWN a milestone. Your friends may as well. Everyone on Bioware's bboard may as well. But that is different from the statement you made "But it doesn't change the fact that these games (esp. BG, NWN and P:T) are considered milestones," which is a much stronger statement.

What you consider to be a milestone is an opinion. Your statement, however, clearly shows that you believe it to be a fact that NWN is considered a milestone game. As such, I asked you to provide evidence of this. The fact that Bioware fans consider it a milestone means nothing; their bias is obvious. If, however, the game is a true milestone, even people who would normally not be attracted to it would consider it such. Hence, my asking about the number of FF-fans who would consider NWN a milestone in game development.

Which I agreed was true. My point was that the road of NWN/etc creates a very different (and, in my opinion, far inferior) experience than console RPGs.

That's like saying, "How do you create an innovative FPS?" Metroid Prime did it. Just because it has been done before doesn't mean it can't be improved upon.

1) Better core combat system. FF2e was good, but it could be improved upon. You might even make a real-time combat system.

2) Better resource system. Perhaps different characters have different resources.

3) Better plots.

4) The obligatory improved graphics/sound/etc.

And this is just off the top of my head.

Who wants replay value anyway?

IMO that is (should be) the difference between games and movies. I'd expect a game to be different everytime I play it.

It's hard to find real life games that are the same everytime you play them.

Besides: There's a difference between "playing the game" and "knowing the game".
If I played rugby once, I'd never dare to think I know everything about that game...

Nope. One consequence is, for example, that you couldn't be a chaotic evil monk. At least, you can't raise your level as a monk while being chaotic.
And there're are other differences as well... sometimes pretty drastic.

You do realize, that all I wanted to hear is that you admit that?
The whole discussion erupted because you told us that there is just one-true-way and how freeform engines spoil the plot

Nope.
See the complete discussion we had till now for reasons why.

Um... I said "they are considered milestones", you said "show me one die-hard FF Fan who considers them milestones".
If your answer is supposed to be a reply to my comment, it means that the set of all people able to define milestones for RPGame is made of die-hard FF fans.

I was more referring to stuff like sales, critiques from magazines, players and industry insiders, etc.

Each of these games added something new to the Genre.

No it isn't.
It's more like saying "who do you create an inovative copy of shadow warrior".

Regarding your list: I miss the innovation. Taking existing features and prefixing them with "better" is not really innovative.

Replay value is an entirely different thing. After the first play through, however, the player should know enough about the game to make informed decisions that are better than the previous one he made the first time.

At the very least, the player should have a firm grasp of what the system does and does not allow.

There are many fans of <insert arbiturary sport> who have never attempted to play the game, but wouldn't make half-bad coaches (at least, in terms of strategies that come from knowing the game. The real job of dealing with players would likely go past them).

You don't have to have played something to know about it. That is simply one way to learn about it.

Which has little relevance, since being Chaotic evil doesn't impart you with any real abilities.

Such as? Do I get to demand that Lord Nasher turn over control of Neverwinter to me if I save it? No. Do I suddenly get to break certain rules I couldn't have before? No. Any choices of significance are denied to me; at best, I get to change the flavor of the story slightly.

They do spoil the plot. That's another one of those consequences.

NWN isn't very free-form. Oh, there's a lot to do, and there's quite a bit of class/etc specific stuff, and several ways to obtain goal X. But the fundamentals of the plot don't change. You can't change the important things (keeping Aribeth from turning, stopping Morag in the past, etc). And if you can't change the important things, what's the point of being able to change the little ones?

If you're going to give the player choices, start with the big ones and work downward from there.

Your comment clearly infered that it was accepted by a majority of people that they are considered milestones. My comment was designed to show that a large segment of the population probably wouldn't like NWN.

Sales doesn't make a milestone; at best, it makes a fad (like the recently-departed Tony Hawk fad, and the current GTA fad).

Reviews are more credible, but then again, reviewers aren't the whole industry. And reviewers have biases too; computer game reviewers would not like a Final Fantasy-style game.

A Final-Fantasy-esque RPG (aka, a console-RPG) is a subgenre of the RPG genre. As such, my statement is valid: FPS's are a subgenre (a very large one) of the First-Person game genre. As such, the analogy holds quite well.

That is, pretty much, how innovation works. You find something that is lacking about a prior work and you improve upon it.

FF2e was innovative compared to FF1 because of the Active-Time Battle system. It was new way of handling combat, and it was a significant improvement on FF1. As I pointed out earlier, in a console-RPG, most of the gameplay is in the combat system. As such, an improvement in the combat system is a fundamental improvement in the game.

An innovation on the console-RPG style could be adding gameplay outside of combat. However, it does not have to be; it is simply one of many possible directions for innovation.

The space of console-RPG's has not yet been explored; you're basically suggesting that it has, and that the only real innovation can come from abandoning that style for a more computer-RPG style. That is both a limited and limiting thought.

That's not what you said; you said an FF clone. Clone by definition is an almost exact copy of a particular game; Now, creating an innovative console RPG is another matter entirely.

Ok. But what's your point? That's pretty obvious and nobody said it should be otherwise...

Ok, so in that case I assume you have been watching numeours other people playing NWN?
The point is: You played it once (if at all) and didn't explore the game. Which is not bad... in fact, that's ok. The bad thing is just that you're acting as if you knew the game, the system and what it's capable of.

I doubt die-hard-FF fans are a large segment of the population

No, it doesn't
It just gives you more freedom. And it might alter the story. But it won't spoil the plot.

But me thinks that you have a couple of things mixed up here.
Your previous example for a plot "save the kingdom" and "return the stolen item" are not plots. These are quests.

A plot would be "A steals an item from group to do Something. A will try it's best to get to City Fnord, get some backup there, and move with that backup to his castel in BlaBlu. There he'll use Voodoo magic to take control over the owner of the item and use him to attack the group from behind"

Not a very good plot, but it's a plot.

The story evolving here depends on what the players do.
If they don't chase the thief, they'll realize sooner or later that something strange is going on with the former owner of the item. They might need to subdue him, find the reason he's acting so strangely and trace it to the source.

If they decide to follow the thief, they'll need to track him down, asking around, bribing people etc.

In the end they'll normally end at the evil guys castle. And the final battle starts.

If they decide to kill the possesed comrade (eacause it's an evil group) let him raise once the group left him dead and sneak attack the group.
Or let him haunt the group as a ghost, demanding that they find the one who did that to him.
That should motivate even an evil group (you don't want to have a howling ghost around you if you want break into a house, it's annoying if that ghosts helps the enemies in the fights, etc).

Or that plot could end once the players killed the comrade, but the sould of him is trapped, aand he'll make a cameo appearance later on

But none of these possibilities will change the plot. And the actions of the player will make a difference.

First of all... "Shooter" is the genre. "First Person" is the view.
You're also mixing levels of abstraction here. FPS is not the same level of abstraction as FF-esque
(It can't be, since you tie it to a certain game, not a genre. Wolfenstein-like might be accurate, though)

And you know that. But it was a nice try.

If I had "sales figures" alone, I'd agree. But if you combine great sales with great reviews from players and playtesters alike, it's a different thing
P:T didn't sell that well, but it got great reviews from all sides (but yours, I guess).

in·no·va·tion: The act of introducing something new.
im·prove·ment: A change or addition that improves.

So, while innovation might lead to an improvment, not all improvements are innovative.
Indeed, just using "better" or "more" of the same is not innovative. It cannot be innovative, since it's nothing new.

FF-esque != console style RPGs

The whole term "console style RPGs" is stupid anyway. The early ultima games were console style.
Diablo is pretty console style.

WarCraft3 seems to fit your idea of a console-style RPG

And if you take a look at the later incarnations of console RPGs, the main difference is the device used to play the game.

The term console-sytle-rpg is pretty dated. You can play FF on the PC. And Diablo on a console.

Hm...
maybe you could define the console style rpg, so we can find a better name for it?

Yes, I did... if I have suddenly become Spellcaster. Do a search for the word "Clone" on this thread. You will find that my only use of the word is in this post.

My point is that I have a pretty good understanding of how NWN works; I don't need to have played it as every class (or even more than once) to understand what is and is not possible.

But I do.

Everything that makes NWN what it is is stored in publically avalaible game scripts. Many of which I looked through in an attempt to determine what the engine could and could not hanlde. While there are all kinds of conditionals in conversations based off of a variety of factors, the basic story doesn't change; only some minor details.

Doubt all you want; Final Fantasy sells better than anything Bioware has ever made. While sales figures don't show a milestone, it does show a fanbase; one that has only grown in it's 15+ years of existence.

Maybe 'spoil' is the wrong word, but it does hamper the possible plots. The plot you mentioned was specifically designed to work within your system (hence the allowances for evil characters). Here's an example plot that just can't work that way:

The main character is a great hero who died in battle 500 years ago. He is ressurected as a vile undead warrior by an evil Sorcerer bent on world domination. However, on one of his missions, he encounters a wizard who attempts to destroy him. That attempt fails, and he is teleported away. However, the Sorcerer's control is lost over him.

As the game starts, this undead entity awakens without any of his memories. He saves a nearby young woman who is being acosted by a local thug. He now embarks, with the young woman at his side, who happens to have her own story, on a voyage of discovery: who is he and why is he back?

Clearly, a flexible-class/skill system is right out. The fact that he is both a warrior (not spell-caster or anything of that sort) and has undead powers are part of the character. In a role-playing sense, this character would never dream of taking levels in, say, Rogue or adding a few thief skills, and any player playing a table-top RPG of this character who did so would be out-of-character.

You might allow some variation amongst other characters, but that, also, assumes that it is not a plot-point of your world that magic (or various other skills) are hard to learn.

First Person Shooter is a sub-genre of First-Person games. FPS's are not normal "Shooters"; they have precious little in common with anything in the "Shooter" genre (Gadius, R-Type, MegaMan, StarFox, etc).

And just because I tied the FF-esque RPG to a particular game doesn't mean that the level of abstraction is different. The subgenre of console-RPGs (ie, FF-esque) is vast. Though, percentage-wise, not equal to the percent of First Person games that are also FPS's, but that's more due to the automatic associations that people make about a First Person game (namely, that it must look and play like an FPS).

Black&White got great reviews, too. Yet, everyone I have spoken to has said the same thing, "It's not fun. It's not even a game."

Why is "better" not an innovation? It is not necessarily in the general case, but that doesn't prevent any particular case from being innovative. As I pointed out, revamping the combat system from FF1 to FF2e was an innovation for the genre.

Actually, that is one of the definitions of console RPGs. What makes a console-RPG a console-RPG can be found in most FF games.

In no way were the first Ultima games in the "console style". I played Ultima 1 and Dragon Warrior (the first console-style RPG); they shared very few similarities, most of those similarities being that they were rendered in 2D.

Sure... except for the fact that it is real-time, and is based on Rogue (which, as far as I'm concerned, was a far better game), which clearly makes it nothing like a console RPG.

Except, of course, that it lacks any sense of resource management outside of an actual in-combat situation (resources left over from the last battle are forfeit).

The term itself may be a bit dated, but the history is not.

Console RPG's are RPG's as derived from conventions born on consoles. That is, limitted controller (few buttons = lots of menues), not wanting to waste precious memory on graphics for items (textual inventories), etc. Heavy emphesis on story and combat.

PC-RPG's are derived from Ultima and the early D&D RPG's. That is, a combat system involing moment, a greater willingness to use graphics to replace textual things, less emphesis on story, but more on exploration, larger worlds, etc.

BTW, FF doesn't sell well on PC's, and Diablo doesn't sell well on consoles. This is due to the two populations wanting different things out of their games.

Happymonster casts spell of petulance on himself.
Happymonster casts spell of true sight on others.

Happymonster shouts: "Enough talking about possibilies! Show us some innovative battle designs. It's no good just endlessly debating theoretical possiblites without trying to prove your ideas."

This board is above all about programming. I want to see some of these detailed and clever ideas in a game. So get to it!

Actually, this board is called, "Game Design & Concepts". Which is what we're discussing.

And my point is that you think that you have an understanding how NWN works.
We're not that far apart, eh?

Um... "my plot" was your quest

and now let's see what you've come up with...

Um.. I thought you'd wanted a roleplaying game?
This setting would be pretty good for an action-adventure (say with some RPG influences, like upgrading weapons or armour, maybe finding some magical amulets, etc.)

Anyway, even here you have lots of possibilities.
He could concentrate either on magic or melee or ranged weapons.
He could choose to use axes, bows, hammers, swords... he could specialize on certain sorts of attacks, etc.

Um... "undead powers" I'd say these would be pretty close to magic? Or just even more combat stuff?

But yes, the setting is pretty limited... but it would make a very nice Gauntlet style game.

But I must admit, it was pretty fair. Actually, I expected something like "Your're a spaceship, and your mission is to attack all these enemies flying towards you. For defeating enemies you get XP (we'll call them "credits" in this context) you can use to upgrade your armour and weapons).

Um... you know that there're pseudo 2d shooters out there using the quake engines?

Anyway... you also do walk into a book shop and ask for fantasy books written in 1st person?

Great reviews from gamers
Check the list... it's not that hard.

And please, give me your definition of console style RPG
Please? With sugar?

If I get you right, anything which resambles FF to a certain degree is a CRPG everything else is not?

Is Lufia a CRPG? Terranigma? Castlevania? Zelda?

So, the modern FFs are no longer CRPGs?
Zelda can't be one, since it uses a graphical inventory.
(I never thought inventories are that important- is it ok to waste the memory on other things, BTW?)

Ok... so if one can play a game with just a few buttons, and if that game has no icons in menus and has a story and combat.. does that make in a CRPG?
Don't think so... guess you need to come up with a better definition.

This board as in Allegro.cc, not this forum.

Are you not going to implement your own concepts?

When will the next version of CF be out?
I think it fits Korvals Desc. of a CRPG pretty well.. you might have to add a story, though. It doesn't have to relate to the game... you just need something you can show in the game pauses...

As you pointed out, "Save the kingdom" isn't a plot. You added plot points to the quest that turned it into the sketch of a plot. There were an infinite number of possible plot points in terms of how that quest played out. My point was that you choose plot points that allow your system to work.

These games are not First-Person Shooter. The genre is defined by it's members. One of the features of the genre is that the player is an individual who does a lot of walking/jumping. Not much in the way of flying, though that can be a possibility on occasion.

Odd though it may seem, just because it is in first-person perspective, and is a shooter, it isn't an FPS. Flight-sim games that involve shooting (ie, Tie-Fighter. Speaking of which, why don't they make games like that anymore?) are not FPS's.

After all, Knights of the Old Republic being on a console doesn't make it a console-RPG any more than FF being on a PC makes it a computer-RPG.

There is no clear answer to that. Unfortunately, genre's are hard to define. Some people out there refuse to believe that Metroid Prime is an FPS.

The only real way to tell for certain is to actually play it. However, the FF and Dragon Quests are pretty good guidlines as to what makes a console RPG a console RPG. They are the originators of the particular style that defines the sub-genre.

Lufia and Terranigma, I've never played. But Castlevania and Zelda are clearly not.

These concepts are not a full-fledged design, nor are they meant to be. I'm still thinking about how I want combat to work.

Because they use icons in their inventories, right?
(Couldn't find anything else that would exclude them)

Of course they're hard to define.
That is because games define the genre. Genres do not define the games.

Try and tell me what a fighting game is without making references in your head to another fighting game. Imposhibibble!

The Original Final Fantasy is often called the "Father of RPG's", because it defined the genre.
It's fairly safe to say that Final Fantasy is the definition of CRPG's.

A "fighting game" is a computer game giving the player the objective to beat one or more opponents using martial arts techniques.
There are subgenres trying to simulate the different situations humans fight another, like tournaments, street brawls or law enforcement.
While earlier games concentrated on weaponless combat you can now find almost any fighting style simulated in games.

(That wasn't that hard)

I don't think genres are hard to define. Problem is normally to find a definition most people can agree on.

The idea in what I said, SC, is that there are no genres without games. That's why I said don't make any references to games (in your post, or in your head).

You cannot define a genre. You haven't really given the definition of a fighting game... you could do that in many types of games that would not be considered fighting games. You do that in GTA!
You do that in Zelda.... or any other game involving fighting.
What about boxing games? Do they have a different definition? Why's that?

Then why isn't Zelda a fighting game?
Because it has story? Fighting games can't then?
What about DOA2: Hardcore? It has story..
Is it the weapons in zelda? I'm sure we could find some of those in a fighting game....
Is it the saving and length of the game that defines it?

It's more difficult when you need to be specific. Especially comparing a general RPG to a CRPG. A CRPG is a specific style. The difference between Street Fighter II Turbo for SNES, and DOA3 for XBox isn't so disimilar when comparing Final Fantasy to Final Fantasy X.. or Breath of Fire to XenoSaga.

[many edits.. I mangled my post I added a bunch in later too.. hahaha.. ]

i agree with spellcaster, because 'genre' has a different meaning to some other people you don't have the one and only genre. Ie, it would be impossible to:

const genre FIGHTING = "yada"

...

Um no. The objective in GTA is not to fight one or more opponents. That's part of the game-play, but it's not the objective of the game.

Because the objective in Zelda is normally to free Zelda by finding n pieces of Something.
The fighting is part of the game, but it doesn't define the game.

No. Why should they? They fit the above description nicely.

That's fine. But it still fits the above description

IMO the whole "CRPG" problem is due to the fact, that there is such thing as a CRPG in the first place.

Could you rephrase that? I must admit that I didn't get that sentence.

Why'd I hafta choose a genre as simple as fighting? That's as simple as an objective.

I did mess up that sentence.

Comparing Street Fighter II Turbo for SNES, and DOA3 for XBox isn't so disimilar to comparing Final Fantasy to Final Fantasy X.. or Breath of Fire to XenoSaga.

Meaning, there's a huge difference between what genre's Breath of Fire (SNES) and XenoSaga (PS2) should belong in. It's not just the graphics. It's the whole style of game play. They really belong in completely different genres, but because of the way that games in those genres have evolved they're not.

Modern RPGs are nothing like the older 'CRPGs'. It's not just the graphics. The only similarities really are that there is story and battles..::)

The same could be said for fighting games, if you ask me. There's one where the 3rd dimension really changes game play and style. The idea is the same, but it's done completely differently, to the point where it almost needs a new genre. Not as big of a difference as in the RPG examples.. because fighting games are such a simple concept in comparison..

I dunno. I see your point.. but I can't deny the differences, it's just hard to lay them out without restricting certain games, or plugging others in. Needs it's own book.

I'm not sure I can follow you here.
If I compare a game like FF3 with FFX, the main difference I see is that FFX hass less game- and more FMV-content.

There're small differences in the way battle results are calculated, and they added some flexibility by choosing a upgrade-system for weapons (I'm not that good in remembering what part did what, but they normally all FFs have some sort of weapon upgrade with slightly more depth than the installment before... so I guess I'm right here )

That's my point... I don't see the big difference between a "modern" RPG like FFX/FFXI and some of the older titles.
Even summonerII could be translated 1:1 into a old-style looking game.

I don't see much difference between newer and older FF's either. Same spells, same classes, same damn airship The world and characters are more fleshed out, but it just feels like FF 1.9. Final Fantasy Tactics, now that should have been a proper sequel in the series, rather than spawn its own. That was a big change in gameplay for the series.

So, what is Virtual-On? You have 2 Mecha firing at one another, which is not a martial art technique. However, it is considered a fighting game.

I could just as easily say that the objective of a Zelda game is to kill Ganon(dorf) using a martial art technique.

I could, also, just as easily say that the purpose of Soul Edge is to acquire the Soul Edge. So, by that definition, it is not a fighting game.

Granted, we're splitting hairs, as we both know that Soul Edge is a fighting game and Zelda is not. However, the point remains; it is difficult to truly define a genre without an actual game comparison. Without specifing examples, it is hard to describe a genre without including a few games that really aren't part of the genre in question.

Describe a platformer without putting Contra and MegaMan (both shooters) in that category, while still including other games that are clearly platformers.

That you don't believe in a console-style RPG as a sub-genre of RPG's is your choice. That doesn't make it true, so I suggest, for the purpose of conversing with the rest of the world, you familiarize yourself with what console RPG's are. Even if you don't believe in the existence of the sub-genre, you should be familiar with the language the rest of the world uses to describe them.

Huh? I'm with Spellcaster and 23 on this; Modern console RPG's are not that much different from FF2e. You may have the occasional game like FF Tactics, which breaks the mold (poorly, in this case), but few of them stray far from the tried and true formula of FF2e. Oh, you may have better graphics and more side-quests, but the meat of the game doesn't change too much.

I would say they're more like FF2.8. Modern FF games share more gameplay with FF2e than FF1. The lack of picking your character's class/spells, for example.

Yes, but it was a change for the worse, not the better.

*Calculator casts Holy on members divisible by 769 who posted on the 19th*

I don't know the game, but if you can only shoot (which I doubt) than it might be a shooter. I played a Capcom game for the Dreamcast which had also fighting bots, but in that game shooting your weapons was pretty similar to using a special move (like a shoryuken).
If the shots replace / work like normal techniques, it can be considered beat-em-up game with a "future" setting.
If not, people might just confuse it with a beat-em up, because it uses a similar presentation or control scheme.

You could, but that would not reflect the gameplay.
If you'd create a game, in which link does nothing else but battling Ganondorf, it would be a fighter. See Super Smash Bros.

Um... only if you can give me a definition of CRPG that doesn't say that whether or not an inventory has icons determines about the CRPG status

My problem is, that nobody seems to have anything but a fuzzy memory of the games they played on the SNES. And everything that looks remotely similar gets the "CRPG stamp of approval".

So, Diablo is a CRPG then?
Even if it uses a graphical inventory?

I guess you mix up game objective and story objective here

Paul is a man.
He is also a mechanic.

I don't see why you can't have games that should have more than one genre?
Is "terminator" an action movie? Or science fiction?

Shooters tend to be typified by lots of enemys. This combat is clearly 1-on-1. And, characters do have a single melee attack, it is almost never used. The Mecha are far too maneuverable for them to ever work.

Your summery of the Fighting Game Genre was, "A "fighting game" is a computer game giving the player the objective to beat one or more opponents using martial arts techniques."

Clearly, killing Ganondorf is the gameplay objective. Saving Zelda, however, is a story objective. The last gameplay task in Ocarina of Time is dealing the death-blow to Ganon; everything else is a cut-scene.

Since, clearly, the gameplay objective is to defeat Ganon, using various sword martial arts, it is a "fighting game" by your definition.

My memory of FF2e is quite sharp, as I am currently in the middle of my... 10th, maybe, replay of the game.

The point we're trying to make is that you can't define a genre without actually having games to refer to.

Why do you keep putting out Diablow (an accidental mis-spelling, but I'll leave it as it sums up my feelings about the game) as a console-RPG? It is clearly not:

#1: it has no story to speak of. Even less than Dragon Quest 1.

#2: it's combat takes place in the same world as the normal terrain. While Chrono Trigger gives the illusion that combat is happening in the same area as where it started, this is merely an illusion; the terrain is non-interactive, and meaningless (as evidenced by the fact that people can run across it at will). It's just a nice, convienient BITMAP to use for the actual battle.

Daiblo isn't even an RPG; it is an adventure game.

No moreso than you did above.

Fun fighting game: Metal Combat!
Super Scope 6 game for the SNES.
I've not yet seen its like ...

Hm... maybe I should have set "main gameplay element" instead. While I consider these term synonymous, others obviously don't.

Ok. That explains why you consider that game the only CRPG in existence...
What about a new try to explain what defines the CRPG genre?

Why?

What? It's full of them. I could tell you lots of stories how my group tried to kill the butcher... we were clearly less powerful than this brute, and it took epic fights before we actually managed to kill him.
Or the skeleton king? That guy was so tough, I had to switch bows in battle because my main bow was about to break because of the many arrows I shot at him.

Diablo is full of stories created by those playing the game.

If you prefer the "lean back and watch the plot develop" it has that stuff as well. But in that area DII is obviously better.

Now that is a good point
So, if you have battle transitions it's a CRPG, without them it's no CRPG?
Why are battle transitions (and pure-textual inventories) that important? I mean, if they can define a genre?

Point taken, and corrected.

Care to explain why Virtual-On is considered a fighting game, even though it violates your revised definition in several ways?

Which, also, explains my references to FF3, Chrono Trigger, and Wild Arms

Because it shares more in common with adventure games than it does with console-RPG's. Because it's closer to being Metroid or Zelda than Final Fantasy.

No, those are a sequence of events that occurred while playing a game. You could say that Tony Hawk has a story, as you can list of the sequence of events in a particular session of playing the game. That doesn't mean the game itself actually has a story; that simply means you can make one up based on a sequence of events.

As I said before, genres are difficult to define without referencing specific games.

Define "anime" for me. Not just as animation produced in Japan (especially considering that some Japanese-produced animation is not done in the "anime" style, and some non-Japanese animation is), but the fundamentals of what makes a cartoon considered "anime". If you can do that, without refering to any particular show, and if your definition is properly inclusive and exclusive (ie, exclusively includes all cartoons considered anime), then I'll make an attempt to explicitly define console-style RPG's.

Maybe it's not a fighter, but feels like one? Different genre, same interface method?
I don't know the game, but if you really just shoot another, it's a shooter.
If the shooting is part of the "fighting style" of the robot, you could argue it's a fighter.

Once again, this might be a game who is both in the set of "fighting game" and in the set of "shooters".

public class VirtualOn extends Fighter implements Shooter {
}

Hm... if I would add icons to the inventory of CT, would it still be a CRPG?

Please add details. Define "adventure game". Don't use other games as reference, or we need to discuss first if these games belong to the genre you propose.

FF2 is an adventure game as well. And IMO the same traits making FF2 to a CRPG are true for Diablo as well.

sto·ry: An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious

So, what's your point again?

[edit]
By the way, you realized that the story of FF2e doesn't influence the gamplay?
[/edit]

That's the definition of anime. The "anime style" you're referring to, is defined by the percieved attributes of these animations.
If the style of movies made in japan changes, the definition of anime has to change as well.

Another option would be to limit the definition to a certain point in time. If so, you can get a pretty good impresson of anime by checking some of the reference works on the subject, like
"The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917" or "Anime: From Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation"

The point is that "anime" as a sytle does of course changes.

But you realize of course, that a genre is different from a style?

The style of an image defines how it was drawn. The genre describes what is drawn.

You can draw landscapes in cubism for example. You can also draw landscapes naive.

In order to describe the style, you need a reference. In order to describe the genre, you don't.

OK, let me rephrase:

Daiblo has no plot to speak of. Even Dragon Quest 1 had more of a plot.

If you remove the text from the inventory, you would be violating one of the major stylistic conventions of a console-RPG.

From dictionary.com:

By definition 2a, a genre is defined by a distinctive style.

So, the problem arises because of a mis-usage of the term 'genre'.

In conclusion, you don't need to have a large array of weapons to have varied combat and rewards for the player.

ding ding
Round 5!

http://www.emersonecologics.com/images/products/chill.jpg, people!

Seriously, the number of times I've seen people dodging questions, arguing over semantics and phrasing, and going off on überrants in this thread is alarmingly high. Especially considering how nice you all are usually.

If anyone says anything at all related to "he started it", I'll personally hunt you down and LART you through a large number of hedges (backwards, of course). With a giant inflatable banana.

which you're normally use to do... what?

My spell of True Sight didn't work very well on them I'm afraid Irrelevant. Hope your bananna works better!

Fuel people's sick and/or twisted imaginations, of course.

Now, where did I put those handcuffs...

/me likes playing mindgames on people.

PS: Woo! I got sigged by Psundlin!

PPS: You could use giant inflatable banana as a weapon in your game!

Irrelevant, I just might have to do that